Well put.

So, politics in general is moving further and further away from a special space for (somewhat) reasoned debate into a free for all for emotional venting — Baden

I believe we call this process "democratization."

I find it interesting that you think that Peterson, of all people, is zany. I find his views pretty mild and banal. I'd have to be pretty sheltered to think that anything he says is particularly "out there." Even Milo says some over-the-top trollish stuff which is painfully easy to spot, and otherwise has pretty pedestrian center-right views.

I believe we call this process "democratization." — Pneumenon

So? If the result is the degradation of politics, polarization, and conflict, all the worse for democratization. It would be naive to think that feeding the masses' baser instincts in an uncontrolled manner is somehow going to lead to progress just because it's democratic.

I find it interesting that you think that Peterson, of all people, is zany — Pneumenon

Zanier. He's one of the milder ones, but lately he's been getting more stridently anti-left/progressive. Of course, some of his opposition is significantly zanier than him. I'm not exempting the left from criticism.

So? If the result is the degradation of politics, polarization, and conflict, all the worse for democratization. It would be naive to think that feeding the masses' baser instincts in an uncontrolled manner is somehow going to lead to progress just because it's democratic. — Baden

Precisely.

One point I have recently reflected on is whether there is an etymological connection between 'politics' and 'polite'. I suppose there must be, as 'polity' is plainly a cognate. But it serves to remind that in order for there to BE politics, there has to be capacity for civil discourse, which means reasoned disagreement, the ability to 'agree to disagree'. Politics is precisely the art of being able to accomodate differences.

I think where many sides in the debates can be faulted is in the reliance on the demonisation of differences - not only is the opponent incorrect, but he's actually evil, not even worth hearing.

But the only fly in the ointment here, is that it's possible at least some of those wishing to participate in civil debate are actually evil. I think, for instance, that neo-nazism and holocaust denial is not legitimately part of civil discourse. (There's been some coverage of an appallingly dark group called 'atomwaffen'.)

The problem is, though, that various interest groups will too easily depict their opponents in those terms. You see this very much in US politics now - there are examples across the spectrum, but the Fox News opinion writers, and the so-called 'conservative media', are particularly egregious at this point. But then, so are the student activist groups that howl down conservative speakers on campus.

They're all difficult issues made more so by the activities of those who exploit those very difficulties for mischievous or malevolent ends.

Hmm, I'm not sure about this connection. Politics derives from the Greek polis or city (as in metro-polis), which in turn has cognates to the Greek poly, many (as in, polyamorous). Politics is intimately connected to the city as a state of social organisation, in which strangers live together, and have to negotiate how to live with one another. One can further refine the political by noting that it is often set in contrast to the space of the family or the home (the oika), in which relations of kinship rule. Negatively speaking, political relations are those which are not kinship relations:

"The rise of the city-state meant that man received 'besides his private life a sort of second life, his bios politikos. Now every citizen belongs to two orders of existence; and there is a sharp distinction in his life between what is his own (idion) and what is communal (koinon)'. It was not just an opinion or theory of Aristotle but a simple historical fact that the foundation of the polis was preceded by the destruction of all organized units resting on kinship, such as the phratria (brotherhood) and the phyle (clan/tribe). (Arendt, The Human Condition, embedded quote from Werner Jaeger, Paideia).

Polite, as far as I can tell, has a Latin root, which at the very least, post-dates the Greek, and if it is related to it, would be derivative of it and not constitutive, as it were. Still, the idea of accommodating differences - I think I'd prefer to say negotiating, which has a less conciliatory air - seems about right, even though I quibble about the etymology.

:up:

OK, we agree then.

Apropros my last couple of posts, this is worth a read/listen.

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2018/02/26/yanss-122-how-our-unchecked-tribal-psychology-pollutes-politics-science-and-just-about-everything-else/#more-5803

See The Anti-Christian Alt-Right in the ecumenical religious studies journal, First Things. — Wayfarer

I quite enjoyed the piece. It's enlightening and thought provoking. The sort of neither relativist nor absolutist conception of pluralistic 'nations' as repositories of values and traditions that it recommends got me to think of Charles Taylor and Alasdair MacIntyre. They haven't been mentioned in this thread as serious 'conservative' intellectuals, have they?

I quite like Ross Douthat and David Brooks, who are regarded as conservative OP writers in the NY Times. Every so often I log onto the National Review but within a couple of clicks, find something I just think is entirely repugnant. And were I America, I think I would probably be Democrat. (Overall I consider my own position to be socially conservative but economically progressive. But I'm actually pretty wary of a lot of the movements and ideas in that First Things article. They could easily morph into something quite sinister in my view.)

Taylor and Macintyre are both, after all, Catholics at the end of the day (I've got both their books in my To Read pile, but Taylor's book is a real door-stop). Catholicism has its issues, and I am not at all inclined towards conversion, but oddly enough I find I am in a lot of agreement with Catholic philosophers on a lot of things.

Taylor and Macintyre are both, after all, Catholics at the end of the day (I've got both their books in my To Read pile, but Taylor's book is a real door-stop). — Wayfarer

I am not a Catholic either, not even a Christian (and not even a theist, for that matter, although I am certainly not a militant atheist). I've read large chunks of Taylor's Sources of the Self (plus a couple papers on the philosophy of language), and it had seemed to me that his own religion is very much bracketed out from his philosophical analysis. I plan to read MacIntyre's After Virtue, eventually, because I want to find out in what way he combines narrativism and Aristotelian virtue ethics. I don't expect either that his being a Catholic should inflect his project in any objectionable direction.

I find it interesting that you think that Peterson, of all people, is zany. I find his views pretty mild and banal. — Pneumenon

In response to a Justin Trudeau tweet commending those who came out to march in support Women's Rights, Peterson tweeted that such support leads to a "murderous equity doctrine".

This type of acidic vehemency isn't atypical for him, and it's anything but mild or banal. I don't know how long Peterson will last as a "public intellectual". He seems to have been abruptly placed in the spotlight, and so can disappear just as easily, especially given the fact that he likely has exhausted his philosophy, which, inherently, is unlikely to evolve or be tweaked. Perhaps this is true of conservatism as well, which, having retained the same talking points for decades, has exhausted itself, has fallen out of fashion.

He's really losing it.

It is murderous.

lol ok :up:

The Democratic party is pretty far to the left these days, if you look at their most recent platform in particular. The last remaining pro-life Democrat barely got reelected recently as well, which is quite telling about how much it's changed — Thorongil

Only by American standards the Democratic party seems pretty far to the left.

Likely Americans would be simply shocked about how "leftist" conservative parties in Europe are. This is something that goes unnoticed. It starts with those parties being in favour of the established social welfare systems. How many European conservative parties support universal health care, for starters? They might raise the question of government finances, but they aren't at all so hostile as the American Republicans are about the issue.

Only by American standards the Democratic party seems pretty far to the left. — ssu

I think the distinction is that Democrats in the US seem to be moving more and more to the left culturally while simultaneously moving to the right on economic issues. Never thought I'd hear Dems singing the praises of free trade, challenging the idea of protectionism, etc. but they've done this recently in large part (it appears) as a reaction to Trump's (likely feigned) populist economic nationalism.

They no longer emphasize class antagonisms - even to the relatively limited extent they did previously under the New Deal platform - and focus their attention instead on improving the plight of marginalized racial (and other) groups. The two things aren't necessarily mutually exclusive, but it does seem like a tough juggling act and the white lower and lower-middle classes are increasingly viewed as the enemies of the social progress desired by most on the American left.

That's how it seems to me at least. I happen to be one of those few remaining a "pro-life" and somewhat socially conservative Democrats who harbors strong "progressive" economic inclinations. It's a pretty lonely place to be these days.

I think the distinction is that Democrats in the US seem to be moving more and more to the left culturally while simultaneously moving to the right on economic issues. — Erik

What you actually do in legislation is what counts, not what kind talk you give.

But on the discourse side, yes, the Democratic party is basically what here in Europe we would call social-democrats, which are basically socialists who are totally fine with the fruits that capitalism gives them and just want to micromanage wealth distribution with various programs.

I think what is really taking Place is that some Americans simply think that social-democracy would work as they think it hasn't been tried already.

Well said, Erik. You have summarized many of the thoughts I had in mind. The Democrats have moved very far to the left socially, effectively adopting all the major tenets of the postmodernist New Left. Economically, Clinton, apart from her tax plan, was indistinguishable from the typical free market/trade position that candidates of both parties espouse. Sanders, however, was to the left of her, representing the older ideal of more state control of industry and big welfare programs, so I think he has pulled the party to the left economically.

Democrats in the US seem to be moving more and more to the left culturally — Erik

The Democrats have moved very far to the left socially, effectively adopting all the major tenets of the postmodernist New Left. — Thorongil

Expand on that

You have summarized many of the thoughts I had in mind. — Thorongil

But Erik said:

I think the distinction is that Democrats in the US seem to be moving more and more to the left culturally while simultaneously moving to the right on economic issues. — Erik

Whereas you called the Dems "far left" and say they have moved "very far" to the left socially. You're not saying the same thing at all as far as I can see. There is a difference between moving "more and more" to the left socially, which is apparent with the Dems support for gay marriage and so on, and moving "far left." There is no policy I know of on which the Dems are currently far left. And the real far left in America (who do exist though they get no platform there) are absolutely opposed to the Dems on almost every issue you could mention. But most likely we have a different conception of what counts as "far left". Feel free to list the policies you're speaking of.

Economically, Clinton... — Thorongil

...was on the right in other words, which is why Wall St. was throwing so much money her way, as they did Obama, who got more in Wall St. donations than both Romney and McCain. Wall St. are not in the habit of supporting the left, obviously (to underline the point you seem to have conceded anyway in this sphere).

With regards to healthcare, Clinton, by not supporting universal healthcare, was to the right of every European conservative party, and only to the left of Republicans. And still, the speaker of the house, Nancy Pelosi doesn't support it nor do the majority of Senate Democrats (although it's becoming more popular).

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/12/16293016/sanders-single-payer-health-care

That poll gives 25% of senate Dems in favour. The numbers may have increased a bit in the past six months, but again we're talking here about a policy that even the extreme right support in Europe, so certainly nothing left-wing about the Dems position on this.

Military policy? Hard to identify what would count as left and right here seeing as both interventionism and isolationism could be considered right-wing. Certainly, Clinton was hawkish and, to take policy towards Israel as an example, all parties are on the right.

Spending? Both parties are now big spenders, happily and cynically ballooning the debt to buy votes. Sure, the Dems will favour social security and the Republicans the military, but social security payments while representing a large part of the budget are still lower on the whole than in Europe.

Taxes? Neither party espouses a highest tax rate of more than 50%, as is routine in social democratic Europe, so nothing left-wing to be found here either.

So what policy can we find on which the Dems are uncontroversially left-wing not to mention "far left"? Abortion? Sanders does appear to be far left on this (no interference with what a woman wants to do with her body) and a proportion of his followers are, but not the Dems on the whole, who support the status quo. Gay marriage? That's a centrist position globally now though I suppose we could call it left-wing at a stretch. Anything else, specifically?

Tbh, I suspect the term "far left" when used in the context of US politics is mostly meaningless hyperbole of the type Fox News commentators and their ilk use to scare conservatives away from any policy they disagree with no matter how moderate it is. As I said, the left (e.g. the Green Party) and the far left (e.g. Socialist Party USA) do exist in America, but when you label moderates like the Dems "far left" the consciousness of anything left of them easily disappears. And that's hardly accidental nor is the fact that the Greens and Socialists are given no media platform over there.

Anyway, I'll leave you with a radical super-far-loony-left idea of the Socialist Party USA:

Let's create a:

""radical democracy that places people's lives under their own control—a non-racist, classless, feminist socialist society [...] where working people own and control the means of production and distribution through democratically-controlled public agencies, cooperatives, or other collective groups; where full employment is realized for everyone who wants to work; where workers have the right to form unions freely, and to strike and engage in other forms of job actions; and where the production of society is used for the benefit of all humanity, not for the private profit of a few"

Shocking, eh...?

Expand on that — Maw

I have already. There is only one remaining actively pro-life Democrat politician. That's a massive shift. You could also take a look through here: https://www.democrats.org/party-platform . It boasts of being the party's "most progressive platform" in history, and I am wont to agree.

Whereas you called the Dems "far left" — Baden

No, I said they were pretty far to the left, not that they were "far left." There is, in fact, a difference in meaning. I associate the latter with various strands of communism, which the Democratic party is clearly not the vanguard of, though it is moving in that direction. With respect to social issues, however, the party is definitely on the far left. It has embraced groups like BLM, for example, which is a far left terrorist organization.

Shocking, eh...? — Baden

No. Why do you think I would find it thus?

... like BLM, for example, which is a far left terrorist organization. — Thorongil

You are two days too early to be making statements like that (possibly three if you live somewhere between Greenland and Samoa).

I'm confused how being pro-choice, or the majority of the party planks listed on the Democratic Party's website adopts "major tenets of the postmodernist New Left".

Don't know what you're talking about.

I'm confused — Maw

I can't help you if you don't want to see the obvious.

In response to a Justin Trudeau tweet commending those who came out to march in support Women's Rights, Peterson tweeted that such support leads to a "murderous equity doctrine". — Maw

Okay, so criticizing the feminist movement makes you "acidic" and "vehement?" The over-the-top hyperbole you're using here is precisely what you're accusing him of doing.

Perhaps this is true of conservatism as well, which, having retained the same talking points for decades, has exhausted itself, has fallen out of fashion. — Maw

That's clearly why Trump got elected!

That's clearly why Trump got elected! — Pneumenon

No. Trump is the least conservative president the US has had since at least Nixon.

I do not think that Maw was using "conservative" in the sense you're thinking. He seems to apply it to right-wing politics in general.